Another GM Warning

"What we’ve got in Europe is a regulatory system that increasingly says cars are dangerous, you might get knocked over by a car, so we’d better ban automobiles. That is the logical conclusion of the way we see the regulatory system being applied today, and it’s an extremely worrying trend."

So one of the world's most senior agricultural business leaders, Michael Pragnell, the chief executive of Syngenta, describes Europe's "increasingly policitised regulatory environment" in an interview for today's Times. Pragnell warns that new European rules potentially banning many pesticides and a failure to embrace genetically modified crops risk a reduction in crop yields of between 35 and 40 per cent across Europe, which would drive up food prices and increase the pressure on land usage at a time when world population is expected to soar by another two billion over the next twenty years. Like Professor Sir David King, who steps down as the Government's chief scientist at the end of the year, he is urging ministers to abandon their neutral stance on GM crops and campaign in favour of the technology.

GM Crop Results Scandal

What are politicians to do when scientific studies undermine their political stances? One option would be to admit their previous judgement was mistaken. Another is to cover up the studies...

Just a month since France ran into trouble with the European Commission over its proposed freeze on the planting of genetically modified crops, we now learn that government officials in Italy have for two years been suppressing the results of field trials on a genetically engineered strain of maize showing that compared with conventional varieties, the GM crop has both a higher yield (by 28-43%) and significantly lower levels of toxins (less than 1% the fumonisin content, which appears to cause neural tube birth defects such as spina bifida).

As Peter Mandelson noted earlier this year, "We need an open and rational debate about the risks and benefits of biotechnology more than ever... We must be under no illusion that Europe's interests are served by being outside a global market that is steadily working its way through the issues raised by GM food. They are not."

UPDATE: Interesting to see the IHT is reporting that the European agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, has today warned farm ministers that resistance in Europe to imports of genetically modified products is contributing to the rising cost of raising pigs and chickens, and could pose a threat to the meat industry.

For further details, see Truth About Trade & Technology

GM Growth Challenge

Last week the European Commission warned President Nicolas Sarkozy that a proposed temporary freeze on the planting of genetically modified crops in France contravenes European law and today we learn that the area planted with such crops in Europe increased by 77% last year, giving the biotech industry cause to claim this proves their product is appealing to farmers and safe for the environment.

In the current issue of The Difference, retired animal geneticist John Hodges asks what risk cloned meat and milk might present to consumers, expresses fears that unknown abnormalities may be transferable to humans through food as happened with Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD), and calls upon the UK and the EU parliaments to take an independent position on cloned-animal products for human consumption:

"The decision not to label is contrary to the economic principle that markets work effectively when decisions are made by customers with access to full information – “the customer is right”. This whole scenario is unethical and has the flavour of vested business interests successfully pressuring government quickly to approve their desired objective. One suspects they know that hypothetical polls have already shown consumer resistance. Further, the limited tests do not offer authentic scientific guarantees of food safety for a novel technique whose long-term hazards upon the whole population are unknown. Normal ethical standards for such an important issue cry out for public debate, for legislative rather than delegated executive action, for science relevant to the risk and for consumers’ rights and wishes to be respected. The issues are too important to be left to the ideology of market forces alone."

Let us know what you think — and if you haven't seen Hodges' article, order your copy of The Difference today!

And In Other News...

Now that Sir Menzies Campbell has stolen the headlines for the next few hours by resigning as leader of the Liberal Democrats, I feel it is down to me to bring a few of the day's other stories worth noting...

Perhaps most significant is the European Union's adoption of a package of measures against Burma's military junta, including an embargo on the export of wood and metals and gemstones. Less encouragingly, despite still being "seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan," the EU has eased sanctions that were imposed against the Central Asian republic after the Uzbek authorities rejected demands for an international probe into a deadly uprising in Andijan province two years ago. As a spokesman for Human Rights Watch has observed, "Suspension in the face of no progress is nothing less than capitulation."

As for leaked suggestions that Britain should switch to long-life milk to reduce the emissions that the climate change lobby claim are responsible for global warming, I for one will most positively be sticking with fresh, full-fat. In the wake of foot and mouth and bluetongue, the Government (whose lab was responsible for the former and whose mismanagement was responsible for its re-emergence days after the all-clear was given) should be supporting our country's dairy farmers, not adding to the pressure they are under.

You might like to read A Rough Guide to the UK Farming Crisis, which concludes:

"Farmers, environmentalists and people concerned about social justice have a common cause: the transformation of the current damaging and highly exploitative food system and the creation of a pattern of food production based on respect for the land and the needs of local communities rather than exploitation and greed. None of us will succeed in this cause until we learn to work together."

Home-Grown Biosecurity Threat

So, it seems the latest crisis to affect our country's struggling farmers is down to lapse of security at the Institute for Animal Health at Pirbright, just three miles from the farm where an outbreak of foot-and-mouth has led to the slaughter to more than five dozen cattle, further culls of other herds on neighbouring farms as a precautionary measure, and a national ban on livestock movement.

I trust the farmers affected will be duly compensated...